Jump to content
MadonnaNation.com Forums


Supreme Elitists
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Nonoka

  • Rank
    Watching the Signs as I Go
  • Birthday 04/03/1994

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Favorite Madonna Song

Recent Profile Visitors

11,343 profile views
  1. The fire is largely put out now and the structure is safe. Definitely not burning to the ground, as the thread title implies...thankfully!! https://edition.cnn.com/world/live-news/notre-dame-fire/h_b65ed0ae7b1533f801dd7c989212497a
  2. Certainly not the end, but this is definitely going to have, beside the immense physical damage, a psychological impact on many in Paris and beyond as it obviously has such a landmark meaning. To see such a symbolic and visible building now charred and partly in ruins for several years is a tough thing to swallow for sure. It's good to hear nobody gut hurt, though!
  3. Looks like most of the roof including the large spire has already collapsed...This is going to take years and years to reconstruct it all.
  4. Just heard about it as well. That loos like a horrible fire! Hope they can put it out as quick as possible, but looks like there's going to be a huge damage already... Hope they could evacuate everyone.
  5. I've answered that question plenty of times over the last couple of weeks in the previous thread. I'd advise you to look it up if you are genuinely interested in hearing my opinion.
  6. Thank you very much for posting that video and also to @Music for that article. It‘s nice to see there is still critical thinking going on in here although some try hard to patrol this thread and shut down any remotely dissenting opinion. I can understand why that video happened to get completely overlooked here. After all, it debunks a key point of James Safechuck‘s „powerful“ testimony and that‘s of course not really desirable when there‘s only one conclusion allowed (hi free speech). Anyway, I thoroughly enjoyed reading the warped comparisons people make in here in order to make their points stick, such as to Adolf freaking Hitler and the Holocaust. Sometimes it really is a good idea to just leave people rambling, reveals a lot about their real underlying thoughts behind this issue, that are justified as „supporting the victims“. Let‘s see what we will hear next
  7. Mmmmh not really. Anyway, looks like #cancelmj isn‘t really working, is it? Let‘s check back in another week
  8. ____ _____ _____ _____ ______ ____ _____ _____ _____ ______ ____ _____ _____ _____ ______ "How long was I with Michael?" // "I have several versions" // "Something that will benefit you" (don't worry guys, only posting the pedo apologism propaganda in small doses)
  9. The outrage Oh my god, lovin' it. Anyway, skipping over that, here is what happens when *shock* the other side of the claims get presented and *shock* it's not the clueless Jackson family talking, who is obviously unfamiliar with the details of the documentary (how could it be different, when their request to watch it in advance was declined by the director). BBC interview with investigative journalist Charles Thomson who won multiple accolades for his reporting (emphasizing this because otherwise I'm sure I would get dozen of comments on how he's a dumb MJ stan 'victim blaming'). Weirdly enough, after presenting the facts of the case, the radio moderators - who are first critical in the beginning - come out of the interview in doubt over the claims. I wonder why? But anyway, keep on going guys. #cancelmj #whatamonster #rotinhellmj #gonnaburnmythrilleralbum #offthewallisbetteranyway
  10. I agree with you. Re/ the '93 settlement, people still love to bring it up as indication that Jackson was guilty, however conveniently forget to mention that not only was it the family who approached Jackson for the settlement, but that Jackson first declined it and pushed for a trial. This is what prompted the Chandlers to go public with their claims. Furthermore, people love to act like Jackson 'bought' himself out of a trial, when in fact this is impossible to do so as it violates US law. Settlements do not cancel the criminal charges against a person. The criminal investigations went on after the settlement in early '94, however were hindered by the fact that the Chandler family - after having received the money - refused to cooperate with authorities and testify in the criminal case. The collected material of the investigation was then shown to two grand juries who concluced there was no sufficient evidence to indict Jackson. This is why the criminal charges were eventually dropped. People can make of the new allegations what they want, but this re-cycling of half-truths re/ the 'old' cases in order to make the sexual abuse claims more credible is rather silly. Yes.
  11. I second all of this... ...and this So in today's airing, they're going to 'explain' the perjury in 2005 and change of stories in 2013-14, however of course will not touch upon the fact that both accusers were repeatedly caught lying and manipulating evidence in their litigations after stepping out in 2013-14. I wonder why? I'm betting Oprah will ask about that...not. I'm sure though no matter what, we will continue to see the alleged victims' words treated as irrefutable proof and any dissenting view branded as, ta-dah, 'victim blaming'. I guess have fun?!
  12. Ha. You wish. https://www.express.co.uk/showbiz/tv-radio/1095118/Leaving-Neverland-documentary-Michael-Jackson-BBC-Radio-2-Channel-4-HBO-release-video Good luck to everyone 'cancelling' MJ
  13. Right at the airing of the 'documentary', what a coincidence. Minimum donation 250$. "It's not about the MoNeY" Anyway (better get out of here quick), let the onslaught roll on in 3,2,1....
  14. Don't say that!! Both Robson and Safechuck are involved in 1,6 billion $ litigations against the Estate each (in which they were *coincidentally* caught lying several times in the attempt to advance their claims), but they're just seeking 'compensation'! So shhhh! HBO and Reed also do not bother to point out that these men were caught lying under oath repeatedly in their litigations with the Jackson Estate (set aside the fact that they also had previously testified for Jackson in criminal proceedings and explained that no inappropriate conduct between them and Jackson occurred). The trial judge found one of Robson’s lies so incredible that the trial judge disregarded Robson’s sworn declaration and found that no rational trier of fact could possibly believe Robson’s sworn statements. Specifically, Robson falsely swore under oath that he did not know about the Jackson Estate until March 2013, despite having met with John Branca, the Co- Executor of the Jackson Estate in 2011 trying unsuccessfully to pitch himself to direct a Jackson- themed Cirque du Soleil show. When Robson learned about the existence of the Jackson Estate was the key issue on his attempt to get around the statute of limitations. Yet in his efforts to try to sue the Estate for hundreds of millions of dollars, Robson had no problem lying under oath about the key issue, as the trial judge found. [...] In one of the lies in which Robson was caught during his litigations with the Jackson Estate, he swore under oath in 2016 that he had but one written communication with anyone about his abuse allegations from May 2012 until the date of his sworn statement. Another Wade Robson fabrication. Through third party discovery— largely from Robson’s mother, Joey, and his sister Chantal—it was revealed that Robson had thousands of such communications, talking to anyone and everyone about his evolving story of “abuse” (many of the communications were inquiries to his mother where he told her he was asking her to help him reconstruct “my story with Michael”). In fact, Robson had even written a book about his supposed abuse by Jackson in the year before filing his lawsuit—which he hid from the Jackson Estate and hid from his own attorneys. When shopping his book in late 2012 and early 2013, Robson communicated with numerous publishers about his supposed abuse (contrary to his lie under oath that he had had onlyone written communication about his “abuse”). Robson first met with his lawyers about filing a lawsuit against the Jackson Estate in March 2013, just a few weeks after being told by his book agent that no one was interested in publishing Robson’s ludicrous story. https://leavingneverlandfacts.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Petition-to-Compel-Arbitration.pdf But don't worry, as it has been established here, once people claiming to be sexually abused step forward, they lose any accountability for their actions and every single move from now on can be explained as victim behavior that forbids scrutinity and critical analysis. #welcometothebravenewworld
  15. Um coincidentally, that‘s exactly what was happening according to every child‘s story bar Chandler, Robson and Safechuck, stories that are numbering in the dozens. Of course, one could argue the porn only came into play for the children Jackson allegedly wanted to molest, but then again, this is refuted by Garvin Arvizo himself who claimed there was no grooming going on. Tbh I find this construction of theories around an adult‘s male heterosexual porn collection rather mystifying, especially considering the exactly same theories can be found and read through in the court transcripts, yet none of it is adding up. But whatever. Feel free the continue the speculation
  • Create New...